{
  "id": 5355091,
  "name": "Society Operaia San Cristoforo Di Ricigliano, Inc., Defendant in Error, v. Frank Rock, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Society Operaia San Cristoforo Di Ricigliano, Inc. v. Rock",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 16,637",
  "first_page": "132",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "176 Ill. App. 132"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "224 Ill. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3334488
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/224/0300-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 Ill. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5619385
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/215/0195-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ill. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        826392
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/89/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ill. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5340158
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/88/0234-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 6623,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15837873173300837
    },
    "sha256": "1dbc1239d39e03c5dea15ca381de13e9c3324bb6f6b5dd12f82e00b46bf2691a",
    "simhash": "1:98e6ec3bc0eb9090",
    "word_count": 1086
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:47:28.669055+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Society Operaia San Cristoforo Di Ricigliano, Inc., Defendant in Error, v. Frank Rock, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe defendant in error, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, to recover three hundred dollars on a written instrument as follows:\n\u201cFormal declaration of obligation and guarantee.\n\u201cIn the year 1908 on the 7th day of January, in Chicago, U. S. of A.\n\u201cBefore me, Pasquale Schiavone, notary public, duly authorized to take instruments and contracts in the City of Chicago, County of Cook and State of Illinois, having an office at No. 388 South Halsted street, personally appeared: Guiseppe Tolve of Barile Province of Potenza, Kingdom of Italy, now domiciled and residing in the City of Chicago and precisely at No. 121 Vernon Park Place, who has declared and hereby declares to occupy an office of trust as financial secretary of the worthy society \u2018San Cristoforo di Ricigliano.\u2019\n\u201cFrank Rocchi, a land owner and uncle of above named constituent, also of Barile, Potenza, now domiciled in this City of Chicago, who in confirming and proving the assertion as to the office intrusted to his said nephew Guiseppe Tolve, as secretary of the society \u2018San Cristoforo di Eicigliano;\u2019 in virtue of this public declaration he hereby declares himself to become a surety and directly responsible to the social body of said society; and he guarantees his nephew Tolve for the sum of $300.00 to be paid to said society at any time said Guiseppe Tolve should become insolvent in his capacity as financial secretary.\n\u201cWithout further ratification the said Frank Bocchi shall answer directly to the said worthy society \u2018San Cristoforo di Eicigliano\u2019 for whatever damages, deficiency or insolvency of the said financial secretary, the said Guiseppe Tolve.\n\u2018 \u2018 The said declaration has been embodied in the present act that has been read to and approved by the parties hereto in the presence of witnesses, having all legal qualifications, has been duly subscribed by said parties hereto by the witnesses and lastly by me, the notary.\n\u201cSigned:\n\u2018 \u2018 Guiseppe Tolve,.\n\u201cFrank Eock,\n\u201cGiovanni Yevetucci, Witness.\n\u201cAntonio Bozza, Witness.\n\u201cPasquale Schiavone,\n\u201c (Seal) Notary Public. \u2019\u2019\nThe cause was submitted to the court without a jury and a fiTiding and judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of three hundred dollars was rendered.\nThe instrument in question is apparently drawn in the form in use in the civil law. The defendant contends that, it containing no condition of defeasance, under the authority of Fitzgerald v. Staples, 88 Ill. 234, it is not a bond. In this we agree. We are, however, of the opinion that the said instrument is a contract of suretyship, wherein the defendant declares himself as surety and expressly binds himself to be \u201cdirectly responsible\u201d and \u201cshall answer directly\u201d to the plaintiff, although the word \u201cguarantees\u201d is used therein. Brandt Suretyship Guaranty (3d Ed.), pages 9-13, with notes thereto.\nThere is some conflict in the testimony pertaining to the signing of said contract, hut we think the greater weight of the evidence supports the contention that the same was signed by the parties thereto at the same time and place and as stated by the defendant; that he signed said instrument at Tolve\u2019s request, who stated to him he had been elected financial secretary of plaintiff society, and had to have the same signed before he could be the said financial secretary. For his services in this position he was paid a small compensation.\nThe defendant insists that the court erred in admitting the testimony of a member of an auditing committee who claimed to have examined the books and accounts kept by Tolve, interviewed many members of the society and made a report to the society that Tolve was short in his accounts $455.13, which said report was also admitted in evidence over the defendant\u2019s objection. This evidence was all clearly incompetent and should not have been admitted. However,, the cause was tried by the court, without a jury; and if there was sufficient competent evidence to justify the judgment, it will be presumed by the reviewing court that no improper or incompetent evidence influenced the court in reaching a decision. Merchants\u2019 Des. Transp. Co. v. Joesting, 89 Ill. 152; Kreiling v. Nortrup, 215 Ill. 195; Pratt v. Davis, 224 Ill. 300. There are also a large number of appellate court decisions to the same effect. In the case at bar the book of the plaintiff society showing the collections from its members made by Tolve and kept by him in his official capacity , of financial secretary and in his own handwriting, showed receipts by him of nearly $1,100. The treasurer, to whom Tolve was to pay the money collected by him, testified that he had received from Tolve $746.37. This left a balance due from Tolve to the plaintiff of more than three hundred dollars. This evidence was practically undisputed.\nWithout considering in -any manner the improper and incompetent evidence admitted by the court, we are of the opinion that the competent evidence was of the greater weight, and clearly sustains the finding of the court, and therefore the judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William Schreider, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Brown & Navigato, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Society Operaia San Cristoforo Di Ricigliano, Inc., Defendant in Error, v. Frank Rock, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 16,637.\n1. Principal and surety\u2014what constitutes contract. An instrument reciting an obligation to answer for defalcations, stated to be a formal declaration of obligation and guaranty, that is drawn in the form in use in the civil law and contains no condition of defeasance, is not a bond, but, the obligor declaring himself as surety, expressly binding himself to be \u201cdirectly\u201d responsible and to \u201canswer directly\u201d to the -obligee, it is a contract of suretyship, although the word \u201cguarantees\u201d is used therein.\n2. Appeals and errors\u2014harmless error. In an action against a surety of a financial secretary of an organization which is tried before the court, testimony of a member of an auditing committee who claimed to have examined the secretary\u2019s books and accounts and to have interviewed members and made a report of a shortage, is inadmissible, and likewise the report itself, but the admission of such evidence will not reverse where sufficient competent evidence of a shortage is admitted, since it will be presumed that the incompetent evidence did not influence the court.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Michael F. Girtbn, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 30, 1912.\nWilliam Schreider, for plaintiff in error.\nBrown & Navigato, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0132-01",
  "first_page_order": 162,
  "last_page_order": 166
}